3 ms·
Possibly because companies using AI don't train them on copyrighted material simply for research or the public good, but to turn a profit on content generated b
by krapp 2y ago
Possibly because companies using AI don't train them on copyrighted material simply for research or the public good, but to turn a profit on content generated by those models, and often explicitly in the style of the creators of that content.
It's difficult to argue that, for instance, training a model on all of Frank Miller's work then prompting it to generate comic art in Frank Miller's style then selling that is fair use.
- gruez 2y agoAnd google books was "simply for research or the public good"?
- krapp 2y agoAs far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content. Even if you want to argue that fair use didn't apply to Google, it clearly applies far less to what AI is used for.
- gruez 2y ago>As far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content. It's _copy_right. If reproducing verbatim snippets was "transformative" enough to fall under fair use, I don't see why producing whole new books would not count as "transformative" enough. Copyright is a regime to grant monopoly over a specific work, it's not a regime to prevent competition from others in general.
- stillold 2y agoThere is an interesting argument here. If Google was selling brand new books created only by taking snippets from other books, that would also fall under fair use?
- gruez 2y agoThey would, but openai isn't explicitly doing that either. You can probably smuggle a full copy of a book via snippets, but that doesn't put google on the hook for copyright infringement. Likewise if openai makes you jump through hoops to produce works verbatim they should be in the clear.
- krapp 2y agoI would assume that Google's use counts as fair use precisely because they are only providing snippets in the context of a search utility which doesn't provide a market substitute for the original product, whereas the business model of AI is to provide market substitutes based on the original product.
- gruez 2y agoProviding a snippet arguably is a substitute of the original product in some contexts. For instance, if you wanted to know who ate the most burgers eaten in one sitting, then the snippet on google books fully replaces the full copy of Guiness World Records. Likewise for other sorts of information like how to inver a matrix.
- cma 2y agoYou can hire an artist that did that though
- krapp 2y agoAn artist that copied an existing artist's style to the degree that LLMs do would be sued.
- gruez 2y agoSource? Has any artist been successfully sued for copying "style"?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- krapp 2y agoI don't know. I'm pretty sure if I traced his work and passed it off as my own, just with maybe a few tweaks, I'd get in some kind of trouble with someone. And in my opinion (which is unfortunately more controversial than I think it should be) what LLMs do is far more akin to tracing than inspired creative expression. And I think intent is relevant here. Someone using an LLM to create a product in Frank Miller's style, trained on Frank Miller's work, isn't merely trying to create something inspired by his style, so much as create a Frank Miller product without having to pay Frank Miller.
- gruez 2y ago>I'd get in some kind of trouble with someone. "trouble" of what nature? You'd probably face more social consequences than legal.
- cma 2y agoThere was probably an early stage where Frank Miller learned by tracing, and many comic artists trace and augment photos of models. I'm not sure how you can define that diffusion image models are tracing things though, unless using something like control net on outlines of Frank Miller drawings.